In many cases, the payment of restitution by a party in a lawsuit involving the government or a governmental entity creates a tax-deductible business expense under Title 26, United States Code, Section 162(f) (hereinafter, “Section 162”). When it comes to violations of the False Claims Act, the Anti-Kickback Statute, Stark Law, or even common law fraud claims and contract disputes, understanding how this statute operates can offer substantial short- and long-term tax-benefits to entities facing stiff financial recoupments. While it is unlikely that the costs of an investigation or restitution order will ever generate a financial net-gain for the entity footing the bill, it is important to appreciate that restitution and proactive remediation costs are viewed differently by both government enforcers (i.e. prosecutors) and tax-collectors, compared with other types of remuneration. Recognizing that there is a difference can, in some cases, help mitigate significant financial burdens.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Divided Court Clarifies Limits on Federal Habeas Appeals - SCOTUS Today
- A Pattern of Uncertainty: Judicial Decision-Making During Federal Shutdowns
- Navigating FDA’s Stance on DSHEA Disclaimer Placement
- An Update on “Unsworn” Attorney Affirmations Under the New CPLR 2106: Recent Rulings Offer a Path to Cure
- First Circuit Clarifies FCA Liability for Clinical Labs: Key Takeaways for Compliance